Due to the downfall of Stalinism(the ideology and policies adopted by Stalin, based on centralization, totalitarianism, and the pursuit

of communism)in the former-USSR and the removal of the threat of coming to power in the colonial and ex-colonial world, by the Soviet- backed regimes, Islamic fundamentalism has replaced 'communism' in the demonology of imperialism.

Islamic fundamentalism is a growing trend throughout strategic and economic regions for the advanced capitalist countries. The US decision to intervene in Somalia was partly motivated by the fear that as the country disintegrated, Islamic fundamentalism could provide a UNITY for the population. They thought that an Islamic regime in Somalia , which is found at the opposite of the Arabian peninsular, could become a direct threat to the interests of imperialism.

But unexpectedly, the intervention of the US and the UN has served to better strengthen Islamic fundamentalism. It is not surprising that the radical anti-imperialist rhetoric of the Islamic preachers finds receptive ears, whether in the Palestinian camps or in the slums of Cairo. The idea that the US, and the West in general, is at war with Islam is confirmed in their eyes by the Gulf war and the continued sanctions against Iraq.

The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is a consequence of the dreadful living conditions facing the people. Because of the incompetence of the weak national rulers to develop the economy and the exploitation brought by imperialism, combined with the absence at the moment of any alternative movements which appear capable of leading a struggle for change.

The 1980s economic boom in the advanced capitalist countries was in large part due to their intensified exploitation of the colonial and excolonial world. Because of their world trade domination, the imperialist powers forced down the price of raw materials exported by these countries, including oil price, thus depriving them of essential revenue. When these countries turned to the IMF and the World Bank, loans were only granted on the basis of severe austerity measures.

It is not however determined that the conservative class elements in the leadership of the Islamic fundamentalist movement would prevail in the course of a revolutionary process. In a situation like this, Islamic fundamentalist movements combine both revolution and counter-revolution. The knowledge of which will actually be dominant would just depend on the balance of class forces in the society. An existence of a Marxist organization with a clear program, capable of developing into a mass force, and able to lead the working class and poor peasantry to power could help in resolving such issue.

If there is no such organization existing to take charge of the revolutionary developments to win the mass of the working class, then the basis would be laid for the counter-revolutionary element within Islamic fundamentalism, based on the middle classes and landlords, to secure triumph for reaction. This is what happened in Iran where the revolution of 1979 brought the mullahs to power. Even here, the ultimate triumph of the counter-revolution was not easily achieved and was only possible due to the abject failure of forces such as the Communist Party, known as the Tudeh.

The Tudeh party had in the past developed a mass following. In 1946, having led massive strikes, the CP were brought into government, compromised and then thrown out. On the basis of revolutionary events in 1951, the Tudeh party regained mass support. But it failed to utilize this, instead backing the bourgeois democrat Mossadeq, and by 1953 the Shah had been reinstated by a CIAbacked coup. In the revolution [in 1979] which toppled the Shah, the working class, especially the oil workers, played the decisive part. The Shah of Iran was a client of US imperialism, presiding over a repressive regime in which opposition was prohibited. From October 1977, throughout the whole of 1978, there was an escalating wave of demonstrations and strikes culminating in an insurrectionary movement in February 1979.

Given the repression of the Shah's regime one of the few places where dissent could be expressed was in the mosque. Although in a distorted and immature manner, the mullahs reflected the discontent of the masses. Their radical sermons were interpreted by the masses in their own way. The mullahs themselves were opposed to the Shah because of the confiscation of church land, and due to their link with the bazaar merchants who opposed the foreign domination of industry and trade. In the absence of any alternative leadership, the mullahs were able to assume a key position in the fight against the Shah and ride to power upon the backs of the working class.

Had the working class been conscious of the power it had in its hands and organized itself to defend that power, the beginnings of a socialist workers' republic could have been established. An international appeal to the workers and poor peasants throughout the Gulf region, the Middle East and beyond, appealing also for support from the working class in the advanced capitalist countries, would have won an enthusiastic response and ensured the success of the revolution. Unfortunately, due to the absence of a genuine Marxist organization, the workers' movement at the critical moments remained rudderless.

The Tudeh played little role in the events of 1979, simply tail-ending the actions of the Islamic clerics around Khomeini. At no time did the Tudeh put forward the need for soviets, or workers' councils, to be set up to organize the revolution and to defend its gains. Instead they declared that "the political programme of Ayatollah Khomeini... (was) in accordance with the position it had itself adopted". (Morning Star, 27 January, 1979). In this way the Tudeh reinforced the position of Khomeini rather than explain the reactionary nature of his program and the interests which he represented.

Once in power there was an immediate conflict of interests, reflected within the clergy itself. The Islamic Republican Party established by the clerics of the newly-formed Revolutionary Council was connected to the old petit bourgeois and the bazaar merchants, who stood for the protection of private property and a government based on their interests. While aiming to represent the economic outlook of this conservative strata, the clerics had to take account of the popular resentment of the masses to the merchants and landlords and their demands for change.

Khomeini immediately tried to restrain the working class and contain their aspirations to overthrow the economic system. However, in the initial period, faced with the enormous strength of the workers' movement, the new regime was forced to go much further than it wanted. Within four months, banks, insurance companies and major sections of industry were nationalized with no resistance from their owners. Strikes and factory occupations developed despite the pleas for restraint from Khomeini. Where the bosses fled the workers started up production on their own and demanded that the government nationalize the plants, which it was obliged to do. The newly established Islamic government had to tread very cautiously so as not to provoke the working class into opposition. In March 1979, thousands demonstrated against proposed laws enforcing women to wear the veil and the regime backed down.

The class character of the new regime was clear from the beginning. On the day the insurance companies were nationalized a bill was published setting up courts with the power to impose ten-year prison sentences for "disruptive tactics in factories or worker agitation". Gradually the regime was able to consolidate itself. The Islamic Republican Guard was used to suppress the left organizations. Clerics were appointed to run the factories taken over by the workers. By May 1983 the Tudeh, which had been the only 'Marxist' party to be officially legalized by the revolutionary council, was banned and its leaders arrested.

The regime relied heavily on anti-imperialist rhetoric to win support, especially utilizing the American hostages in November 1979. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 the masses rallied to defend the revolution. The regime, given room for maneuver, was able to go onto the offensive against the opposition. The veil was enforced in 1981. By August 1982 all secular law was null and void and the Sharia was implemented. By 1982 40,000 teachers had been purged. Thousands of working class oppositionists were murdered.

The Iranian regime under Khomeini, and then Rafsanjani, being unable to provide any solution to the economic problems of capitalism, entered crisis. Splits emerged within the regime between those such as Rafsanjani, who wanted to turn more towards the western capitalist powers for trade and economic assistance, and those who reflected more the revolutionary traditions of the mass of the population. The regime has to walk a fine tightrope between trying to arrive at an understanding with imperialism and using anti- imperialist rhetoric to keep the support of the masses. This attempt to face both ways at once is encapsulated at the luxury Hotel Azadi in Teheran. In the lobby there is a sign saying 'Down with the USA', but at the reception desk guests are told that bills can only be settled in US dollars.

The continuing anti-imperialist fervor of the masses was shown by the demonstration of one million in Teheran at the outbreak of the Gulf war, demanding joint action alongside Iraq against the US. This was despite the eightyear long war with Iraq in which 400,000 Iranians died. If the regime does not take this attitude into account it could unleash a movement which would cause it to fall. Given the developing unrest and discontent with the regime it is only a matter of time before the working class regroups and asserts itself more determinedly. With the absence of an organized opposition it is possible that a new movement of the working class will manifest itself initially under the banner of a wing of Islam, couching its demands in Islamic terms.

The Iranian revolution, with the overthrow of a powerful prowestern monarch and its seeming ability to stand up to imperialism over the last fourteen years, has attracted many in the Middle East to the banner of fundamentalism. As the opposition to the Islamic dictatorship in Iran develops, the real nature of the regime will be seen not only within Iran but elsewhere in the region and its power of attraction will diminish. In Algeria, the FIS was originally formed in 1981 as a religious organization, sanctioned by the FLN government as an outlet for religious sentiment to counter left-wing opposition and maintain stability. During food riots in October 1988 the FIS acted as a restraining influence. But in 1990, when the ban on political parties was lifted, the FIS transformed itself into a party, attacking government corruption.

In the local elections of June 1990 the FIS won 54% of the vote, taking control of 32 of the 48 regional authorities. In the first round of the general election, held in December 1991, the FIS won 47% of the vote, gaining 188 of the 231 seats in which there was an overall winner, compared with only 23% and 15 seats for the ruling FLN. Faced with the prospect of a fundamentalist victory, the military intervened to annul the election in January 1992 and, in March, banned the FIS. The FIS has since developed a guerrilla organization capable of taking on the government forces in two-day gun battles, with between 10,000 and 15,000 armed activists. It has made inroads into the military itself.

Today there are only three Islamic fundamentalist nations: Iran, Sudan, and Pakistan.